6 ms·

But in other news, the US Supreme Court has ruled that Corporations are People, so...

thr0wawayf00 4y ago
Well, every corporation wants to be treated as a person when it's beneficial to them, but I'm sure there are many corporations that aren't comfortable with the idea of AI authoring patents.
- rexreed 4y ago
  Of course they want their intellectual property cake and to eat it too. Companies want to be treated like people if they are creating campaign and advocacy content that is protected by the first amendment, but they don't want AI systems, created by companies, to be treated like people if they are creating content that is protected by intellectual property laws. Interesting how to split that hair.
  - sixstringtheory 4y ago
    Couldn’t it be said that any of an AI’s “creations” are actually creations made by the creators of the AI, who are simply using it as a tool? Why should the AI be assigned ownership and not the AI’s owner? Likewise, does a hammer build a house, or its wielder?
ch4s3 4y ago
You're misunderstanding what corporate personhood means. The concept itself is over 2000 years old, and is baked into the laws of most countries in some form or another. It basically means that companies that are not sole proprietorships can enter into contracts, be sued in court, and have some other rights and responsibilities like a literal person under the law. To quote the supreme court from Pembina Consolidated Silver Mining Co. v. Pennsylvania (1888): > "Under the designation of 'person' there is no doubt that a private corporation is included [in the Fourteenth Amendment]. Such corporations are merely associations of individuals united for a special purpose and permitted to do business under a particular name and have a succession of members without dissolution." Clearly an associations of individuals should have more or less the same rights they have individually when they come together. The right to association is at the beginning of the bill of rights.
- PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago
  > Clearly an associations of individuals should have more or less the same rights they have individually when they come together. If that's the case, then why does the formation of the corporation occur at all? It's not about "easier bookkeeping", it's because the corporation's existence shields its owners from individual liability. That's why it exists, rather than just non-corporate agglomerations of individuals. The corporation itself is a new legal entity, whose existence changes the legal culpability of the owners, and because of that, it makes perfect sense to me that while the owners would not lose their individual rights by forming a corporation, neither do they cede or grant those individual rights to the corporation.
  - ch4s3 4y ago
    They also exist for the purpose of continuity beyond the tenure of any individual owner or member. > The corporation itself is a new legal entity Yes clearly. > neither do they cede or grant those individual rights to the corporation I'm sure you would agree that corporations can enter into contracts. This is an individual right granted to corporations. They also have due process rights, unless you think governments should be able to arbitrarily intervene in their affairs. Due process is an individual right granted to corporations. Corporations can sue or be sued in courts of law, again this is an individual right/responsibility. These are all practical things. It would be unwieldy for owners to all have to be individually party to any contract or suit, especially in cases where ownership is distributed through stock. The legal fiction arises out of practicality, centuries of history, and collective exercise of individual rights(as owners of a corporation we all own X, or enter into contract with Y).
kube-system 4y ago
As “funny” as it sounds, legal personhood and literal personhood are not the same thing. Legal personhood means that a corporation can sue, be sued, and enter into contracts. That is all.
- wrycoder 4y ago
  And make political contributions like a real citizen.
- rexreed 4y ago
  It sounds funny because it is in the context of Citizens United v. FEC, which struck down as unconstitutional a federal law prohibiting corporations and unions from making expenditures in connection with federal elections. In that case, the law which was about limiting influence on campaigns through money was ruled invalid because corporations should have rights as people in addition to the rights of the people themselves.
  - kube-system 4y ago
    I’m not going to defend citizens united, but the opposite conclusion is also silly: that a group of people lose their 1st amendment rights as soon as they organize as a corporation. That’s really just an issue with the 1st amendment that should be further amended, not an issue with the concept of corporate personhood. The concept of “natural personhood” exists to handle cases where the differentiation is necessary, and it’s the legislature’s job to use it.
    - feoren 4y ago
      > that a group of people lose their 1st amendment rights as soon as they organize as a corporation Nobody in that group of people has lost anything. If 10 people walk into a room, you have 10 legal persons with 1st Amendment rights in that room. If they organize into a corporation, you have 11 legal persons with 1st Amendment rights in that room!? Without Citizen's United, you simply still have 10 legal persons with 1st Amendment rights. Who's losing anything?

Well, every corporation wants to be treated as a person when it's beneficial to them, but I'm sure there are many corporations that aren't comfortable with the idea of AI authoring patents.

rexreed 4y ago
Of course they want their intellectual property cake and to eat it too. Companies want to be treated like people if they are creating campaign and advocacy content that is protected by the first amendment, but they don't want AI systems, created by companies, to be treated like people if they are creating content that is protected by intellectual property laws. Interesting how to split that hair.
- sixstringtheory 4y ago
  Couldn’t it be said that any of an AI’s “creations” are actually creations made by the creators of the AI, who are simply using it as a tool? Why should the AI be assigned ownership and not the AI’s owner? Likewise, does a hammer build a house, or its wielder?

ch4s3 4y ago

You're misunderstanding what corporate personhood means. The concept itself is over 2000 years old, and is baked into the laws of most countries in some form or another. It basically means that companies that are not sole proprietorships can enter into contracts, be sued in court, and have some other rights and responsibilities like a literal person under the law. To quote the supreme court from Pembina Consolidated Silver Mining Co. v. Pennsylvania (1888): > "Under the designation of 'person' there is no doubt that a private corporation is included [in the Fourteenth Amendment]. Such corporations are merely associations of individuals united for a special purpose and permitted to do business under a particular name and have a succession of members without dissolution." Clearly an associations of individuals should have more or less the same rights they have individually when they come together. The right to association is at the beginning of the bill of rights.

PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago
> Clearly an associations of individuals should have more or less the same rights they have individually when they come together. If that's the case, then why does the formation of the corporation occur at all? It's not about "easier bookkeeping", it's because the corporation's existence shields its owners from individual liability. That's why it exists, rather than just non-corporate agglomerations of individuals. The corporation itself is a new legal entity, whose existence changes the legal culpability of the owners, and because of that, it makes perfect sense to me that while the owners would not lose their individual rights by forming a corporation, neither do they cede or grant those individual rights to the corporation.
- ch4s3 4y ago
  They also exist for the purpose of continuity beyond the tenure of any individual owner or member. > The corporation itself is a new legal entity Yes clearly. > neither do they cede or grant those individual rights to the corporation I'm sure you would agree that corporations can enter into contracts. This is an individual right granted to corporations. They also have due process rights, unless you think governments should be able to arbitrarily intervene in their affairs. Due process is an individual right granted to corporations. Corporations can sue or be sued in courts of law, again this is an individual right/responsibility. These are all practical things. It would be unwieldy for owners to all have to be individually party to any contract or suit, especially in cases where ownership is distributed through stock. The legal fiction arises out of practicality, centuries of history, and collective exercise of individual rights(as owners of a corporation we all own X, or enter into contract with Y).

kube-system 4y ago

As “funny” as it sounds, legal personhood and literal personhood are not the same thing. Legal personhood means that a corporation can sue, be sued, and enter into contracts. That is all.

wrycoder 4y ago
And make political contributions like a real citizen.
rexreed 4y ago
It sounds funny because it is in the context of Citizens United v. FEC, which struck down as unconstitutional a federal law prohibiting corporations and unions from making expenditures in connection with federal elections. In that case, the law which was about limiting influence on campaigns through money was ruled invalid because corporations should have rights as people in addition to the rights of the people themselves.
- kube-system 4y ago
  I’m not going to defend citizens united, but the opposite conclusion is also silly: that a group of people lose their 1st amendment rights as soon as they organize as a corporation. That’s really just an issue with the 1st amendment that should be further amended, not an issue with the concept of corporate personhood. The concept of “natural personhood” exists to handle cases where the differentiation is necessary, and it’s the legislature’s job to use it.
  - feoren 4y ago
    > that a group of people lose their 1st amendment rights as soon as they organize as a corporation Nobody in that group of people has lost anything. If 10 people walk into a room, you have 10 legal persons with 1st Amendment rights in that room. If they organize into a corporation, you have 11 legal persons with 1st Amendment rights in that room!? Without Citizen's United, you simply still have 10 legal persons with 1st Amendment rights. Who's losing anything?